SANTONA-NERVIA CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
PUBLIX MARKET, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed a lower court's order granting a temporary injunction, which was conditioned on the plaintiff posting a $50,000 bond. The court found no abuse of discretion in the bond amount and noted the appellant failed to provide a record of the lower court proceedings.
No, the lower court did not abuse its discretion in fixing the bond amount at $50,000.
“Therefore, the chancellor [having determined to issue the injunction] was required to fix the terms, conditions and amount of an injunction bond.”
Establishes the legal requirement for a bond when issuing an injunction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff obtained a temporary injunction to stop the completion of a supermarket. The injunction was conditioned on the plaintiff posting a $50,0…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Injunction Bond cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an interlocutory appeal by a plaintiff below, seeking review of an order granting temporary injunction in its favor conditioned upon the posting of a $50,000.00 bond.
The injunction was obtained by the appellant-plaintiff. It appears that it was entered upon evidence taken before the chancellor which is not included in the record. There was no showing permitting the issuance of a temporary injunction without bond, pursuant to the provisions of § 64.03 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Therefore, the chancellor [having determined to issue the injunction] was required to fix the terms, conditions and amount of an injunction bond. The injunction stopped the completion of a supermarket in Coral Gables, Florida, and there does not appear to be any abuse of discretion by the chancellor in the fixing of a bond of $50,000.00.
Without the record of the proceedings before the chancellor being included in the .record, this court is not authorized to reverse nor amend the ruling complained of. See: Hall v. Davis, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 599; Insana v. Hasty, Fla.App.1959, 109 So.2d 791; Downing v. Bird, Fla.App. 1962, 145 So.2d 559.
For the above stated reasons, the order here under review is affirmed..
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hoffman v. White, 235 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)…ed to make findings or reflect essential facts to qualify it under the rule. Likewise, the record is devoid of any showing to support issuance of the temporary injunction without bond. Santona-Nervia Corporation v. Publix Market, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 146 So. 2d 394. For these reasons, the order granting the temporary injunction is reversed and this cause is remanded with directions to the trial judge to vacate the order and to con [*44] duct such proceedings as may be deemed appropriate to hear and determine…
-
Barnett v. Bacardi, 394 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…PER CURIAM. The trial court granted a temporary injunction but did not require the posting of a bond [there was no attempt to come within the exception to this rule. See: Santona-Nervia Corporation v. Publix Market, Inc., 146 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); Hoffman v. White, 235 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.610(b).] Upon a motion to dissolve, the trial court refused to dissolve the temporary injunction. This appeal ensued. We reverse. Except in limited circumstanc…
-
Berk v. Earnest Irving Berk, 272 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…for garnishment or the motion to quash. Therefore, we have no alternative but to affirm the action of the trial judge here under review. Best v. Barnette, Fla.App.1961, 130 So. 2d 90; Santona-Nervia Corporation v. Publix Market, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 146 So. 2d 394; Curtiss-Wright Corporation v. King, Fla.App.1968, 207 So. 2d 294; Jones v. First National Bank in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.App.1969, 226 So. 2d 834; Rule 4.2, subd. d, F.A.R., 32 F.S.A. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Hall v. Davis, 106 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Lottie Sykes Downing v. Bird, 145 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Insana v. Hasty, 109 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)